This is false. Section 230 is NOT ONLY intended to provide 100% cover for internet companies the courts have 100% of the time (since the 90s) interpreted as such. There are people, like your self, that believe the provisional distinction between a publisher and and platform were interpreted the way you want it to be interpreted, but not only have courts rejected that interpretation it is economically impossible to have an IT based economy and use that interpretation of publisher vs platform. Here is the reason why it is being interpreted that way and why it must ramain that way: private property rights trump everything in the constituation. The way to think bout it like this: * Everyone is a publisher at all times, technology CANNOT be used in a way that doesn't make you a publisher. Send one packet over a TCP/IP network and you are a publisher. * That means that EVERYONE has simultaneous rights: The right to attempt to publish (communicate or send data) out to the greater network and the right to control what incoming data they consume. * This means that property rights clarify 100% of the risk use cases: You can attempt to send data from your property to someone elses property but their property rights guarantees that they don't have to recieve the incoming data from you. Property rights also guarantee that you can do anything you want with the data that you have accepted on to your property, plus or minus licensing rights as it pertains to intellectual property, which ironically, are still PROPERTY RIGHTS and only further clarification said category.. Section 230 attempts to clarify the above mechanism with terrible writing and the courts have correctly interpreted the law and your poor understanding of the issue as follows: * Property rights protect them from your demands on their property and also protect you from their demands on your property. * The courst are basically saying, as long as you are USING SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY you are a sharecropper / renter and only get the rights service provides alot share croppers and renters. Or, to put it another way, you have no clue what you are talking about, you are regurgitating reddit and .win (and robert barnes deliberate misrepresentation on this issue) bullshit. That doesn' t mean courts wont change their interpretation in the future or reps won't change the law to match your perspective, but 100% of your perspctive is not only wrong, it will be just one more thing to erode property rights away from you the individual and give it away to the state which basically means giving it away to the communist.